本文選題：抗日戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)　切入點(diǎn)：最高法院　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本文旨在通過考察抗日戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)時(shí)期最高法院的改革活動(dòng)，總結(jié)并反思其寶貴的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和深刻的歷史教訓(xùn)。 《引論》闡述了相關(guān)學(xué)術(shù)研究及本文研究的價(jià)值�？陀^系統(tǒng)的闡述最高法院戰(zhàn)時(shí)的改革，其中最高法院設(shè)置分庭的方法，為司法權(quán)地方化這一司法史難題指出了解決路徑，反思了政治對(duì)最高法院戰(zhàn)時(shí)改革的影響及司法黨化問題對(duì)司法獨(dú)立的影響。本文采用歷史唯物主義方法論及數(shù)據(jù)分析方法。 第一部分，在抗戰(zhàn)建國及國民黨推行“司法黨化”政治背景下，分析了抗戰(zhàn)時(shí)期最高法院在司法工作中存在的困境，一是其與中央相對(duì)隔絕的區(qū)域無法進(jìn)行司法審判；二是戰(zhàn)時(shí)法令在抗戰(zhàn)期間大量頒布，其施行中爭(zhēng)議較多，且在與中央隔絕的區(qū)域無法有效施行；三是通貨膨脹嚴(yán)重，民事司法審判標(biāo)的額標(biāo)準(zhǔn)需重新確定；四是最高法院審理案件數(shù)量大、壓力大；五是司法黨化對(duì)最高法院的司法獨(dú)立的影響。 第二部分，陳述并分析了抗戰(zhàn)時(shí)期最高法院為適應(yīng)抗戰(zhàn)進(jìn)行的改革及改革爭(zhēng)議，一是其機(jī)構(gòu)的改革，主要是指最高法院在地方新設(shè)的分庭；二是其統(tǒng)一法令解釋權(quán)的變革；三是其第三審存廢之爭(zhēng)；四是其第三審民事訴訟標(biāo)的額的變革。 第三部分，功在戰(zhàn)時(shí)，利在千秋，我認(rèn)為任何學(xué)術(shù)研究最終目的都應(yīng)是“學(xué)以致用”，在現(xiàn)代社會(huì)最高法院做為一個(gè)重要的司法機(jī)關(guān)，用現(xiàn)代的視角來研究戰(zhàn)時(shí)最高法院，，才能更好的解釋其研究對(duì)于民國司法史及中國最高法院的價(jià)值和意義。這部分探討最高法院戰(zhàn)時(shí)改革對(duì)我國司法史留下的寶貴經(jīng)驗(yàn)及教訓(xùn)，其一制約司法權(quán)地方化的歷史啟迪，同時(shí)討論了國外制約司法權(quán)地方化的歷史經(jīng)驗(yàn)，最終得出在人、財(cái)、物等各方面加強(qiáng)中央對(duì)法院系統(tǒng)的直接管理，可以有效制約司法權(quán)地方化；二是戰(zhàn)時(shí)司法黨化問題給我們敲響警鐘，強(qiáng)調(diào)黨義不能替代法律和正義，政治正義不能替代司法正義，法官應(yīng)做到司法中立，要實(shí)現(xiàn)司法獨(dú)立必須保障司法不黨；三是抗戰(zhàn)時(shí)期最高法院第三審存廢爭(zhēng)議對(duì)中國審級(jí)制度的啟示；四是帶有根本缺陷的戰(zhàn)時(shí)本土的“能動(dòng)司法理論”，縱觀戰(zhàn)時(shí)最高法院的改革，其背后具有鮮明的政治色彩，最后著重批判了最高法院的改革具有強(qiáng)烈的政治傾向，強(qiáng)調(diào)司法改革不應(yīng)以政治為邏輯起點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to summarize and reflect on its valuable experience and profound historical lessons by examining the reform activities of the Supreme Court during the War of Resistance against Japan. The introduction expounds the relevant academic research and the value of this paper. Objectively and systematically expounds the reform of the Supreme Court in wartime, in which the Supreme Court sets up a chamber, which points out the way to solve the judicial history problem of localization of judicial power. This paper reflects on the influence of politics on the wartime reform of the Supreme Court and the influence of judicial partisanship on judicial independence. This paper adopts the methodology of historical materialism and the method of data analysis. The first part, under the background of the establishment of the Anti-Japanese War and the implementation of "judicial partying" by the Kuomintang, analyzes the dilemma of the Supreme Court in the judicial work during the War of Resistance against Japan. Second, during the War of Resistance against Japan, the wartime law was issued in a large number, which was controversial in its implementation, and could not be effectively implemented in areas isolated from the central government; third, the inflation was serious, and the standard of the target amount of civil justice should be re-determined; Fourth, the number of cases heard by the Supreme Court is large and the pressure is great; the fifth is the influence of judicial partisanship on the judicial independence of the Supreme Court. The second part states and analyzes the reform and disputes of the Supreme Court in order to adapt to the War of Resistance against Japan during the War of Resistance against Japan, one is the reform of its organization, mainly refers to the new chamber set up by the Supreme Court in the local areas, the other is the reform of the power of interpretation of its unified decrees; Third, the third instance of the existence and abolition of the dispute, fourth, the third trial of the object of civil action changes. The third part, merit in wartime, benefit in thousands of years. I think that the ultimate purpose of any academic research should be to "apply learning to use". As an important judicial organ in modern society, the Supreme Court of War should study the Supreme Court in wartime from a modern perspective. In order to better explain the value and significance of its research to the judicial history of the Republic of China and the Supreme Court of China, this part explores the valuable experience and lessons left by the wartime reform of the Supreme Court to the judicial history of our country. One is the historical enlightenment that restricts the localization of judicial power. At the same time, the historical experience of restricting the localization of judicial power abroad is discussed. Finally, it is concluded that strengthening the direct management of the court system by the central authorities in the aspects of people, money and property can effectively restrict the localization of judicial power. Second, the issue of judicial partying in wartime has sounded the alarm bell for us, emphasizing that party justice cannot replace law and justice, political justice cannot substitute for judicial justice, judges should be judicial neutral, and the realization of judicial independence must ensure that the judiciary is not a party; The third is the enlightenment of the third instance of the Supreme Court to the Chinese trial system during the War of Resistance against Japan, the fourth is the native "active judicial theory" with fundamental defects, which has a clear political color behind the reform of the Supreme Court during the War of War. Finally, the author emphatically criticizes the strong political tendency of the reform of the Supreme Court, and emphasizes that the judicial reform should not take politics as the logical starting point.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D929;D926.21

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 蔣惠嶺,王勁松;國外法院體制比較研究[J];法律適用;2004年01期

本文編號(hào)：1607776